by Luke Russet and Carrie Dann
House Speaker John Boehner (click here) would not
say Thursday if the House GOP’s campaign arm should stop including the
Benghazi attacks in fundraising appeals.
Asked
three times whether the National Republican Congressional Committee
should be fundraising based on what they call Democratic obstruction of
the Benghazi investigation, Boehner answered only: “Our focus is on
getting the answers to those families who lost their loved ones.
Period.”...
The truth of the matter is, there was a report long time ago by George Schultz which stated there needed to be secure buildings for our diplomats. The specific type of building that was suppose to be standard for American diplomats is called an "Inman Building." Congress never did what they were supposed to do and our diplomats have been at risk for decades.
The Inman Report
The truth of the matter is, there was a report long time ago by George Schultz which stated there needed to be secure buildings for our diplomats. The specific type of building that was suppose to be standard for American diplomats is called an "Inman Building." Congress never did what they were supposed to do and our diplomats have been at risk for decades.
The Inman Report
Report of the Secretary of State's
Advisory Panel on Overseas Security (click here)
...The process of obtaining new buildings abroad (whether through construction or purchase) or renovating existing ones is excessively complex, time consuming and has been inadequately funded. This has meant that we have fallen further and further behind on capital projects.
The threat of technical penetration of United States diplomatic facilities has been of major concern since World War II. The techniques used by hostile governments have shown a steady increase in sophistication and subtlety. The threat is greater now than it has ever been and United States missions are at risk in many parts of the world. While the greatest risk to United States diplomatic facilities is within the Soviet Union, technical attacks have occurred in a number of other facilities worldwide...
...-- Adequate funding and new approach to overseas construction are essential. The old, business-as-usual approach cannot meet the new requirements....
I understand why Democrats want to boycott the Select Committee, but, the number of Democrats on the committee is not important. What is important is there are Democrats on the committee to submit evidence. That's all. The Dems don't have to participate, but, I would be sure all the pertinent information was entered into evidence. The Republicans won't. They are on a witch hunt and they have an agenda.
Posted: 10/10/2012 1:32 pm Updated: 10/11/2012 1:55 pm
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) voted to cut back on funds for embassy security. (click here)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that
House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to
the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in
2010.
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country....And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.
Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored....
Those concerns were ignored and it started with adequate funding for State Department security. Just because Republican Austerity killed four Americans in Benghazi doesn't justify a new investigation. If the monies spent on Benghazi committees and now a special committee were spent on Consulate Security, this danger would no longer exist.
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country....And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.
Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored....
Those concerns were ignored and it started with adequate funding for State Department security. Just because Republican Austerity killed four Americans in Benghazi doesn't justify a new investigation. If the monies spent on Benghazi committees and now a special committee were spent on Consulate Security, this danger would no longer exist.
